Jump to content

New Ford 7.0 L....?


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

 I don't deny that DI,  and 4-Valve head and I-VCT could add even more efficiency  but looks like Ford felt those measures weren't needed.

I think they've gone in another direction with this, the priority was to provide efficiency under constant load with Stoic fuel mixture and less emphasis on max HP. It ;ools ;ike Ford listened to  truck buyers and gave them what most had been asking for, simple dependable power and reliability that comes from less complex engine.  .It's going to be interesting seeing some reviews of this engine as I think its main purpose is to add sales in truck segments where the 6.2 is just too small (runs too rich when hauling / towing)

Which means there will be copious amounts of hidden power to unlock when the tuners get around to richening it up to 12:1 afr !!!!  Seriously, the V10s wake up in a big way when you pull WOT enrichment down from the ridiculous 14.7:1 in the factory tune.

I still can't wait to see what's possible with long tubes, a bigger cam, a bigger intake, and lightweight valvetrain.  This thing is literally the second coming of the BBF.  It deserves a place right next to the BBC and 385-series BBF.

 

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

Which means there will be copious amounts of hidden power to unlock when the tuners get around to richening it up to 12:1 afr !!!!  Seriously, the V10s wake up in a big way when you pull WOT enrichment down from the ridiculous 14.7:1 in the factory tune.

I still can't wait to see what's possible with long tubes, a bigger cam, a bigger intake, and lightweight valvetrain.  This thing is literally the second coming of the BBF.  It deserves a place right next to the BBC and 385-series BBF.

 

The aftermarket parts for the 6.2 Boss were impressive so the 7.3 built as a HP street engine will probably be sought after for a lot of resto mods where folks just want a big block 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

The aftermarket parts for the 6.2 Boss were impressive so the 7.3 built as a HP street engine will probably be sought after for a lot of resto mods where folks just want a big block 

Hmmm....hopped up, tuned out 7.3L in a mid 60's full size wagon with 10 speed tranny...sounds yummy.

Edited by 351cid
fix spelling error
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fordmantpw said:

Yes, this is a TRUCK engine...no ifs, ands, or buts about it.  When they are making over 700 HP with a super charged 5.2L, there is no need for something of this size (and weight) in a Mustang or F150.  It's big, it's heavy, and it makes it's power and torque at low RPMs.  It belongs in a truck.  Period.  Just like the V10 it's replacing.  It's not fancy, it just goes about its business without making a fuss, and lets everyone forget it's even around.

In agree.  Because it's not going into any performance vehicles, I don't think there will be much aftermarket support, just as there has not been for the 6.2L.  Looks like it shares a bell housing bolt pattern with the 6.7L Powerstroke, if that's the case what transmission could you use that would fit into a Mustang?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 92merc said:

DI allows for more compression and power.  But it is not as efficient as port injection.  That's why on the F150, the 2.7, 3.5 and 5.0 all now have dual port and direct injection.  Get power when needed but efficient most the other times.

If you listen to the TFL video, Ford engineer Joel stated right from the beginning, the 7.3 size was chosen to get a certain efficiency at a specific RPM range needed for specific power.  So DI added complexity, but didn't add efficiency.  Hence port was better FOR THIS application.

It wasn't mentioned in the video, but the higher compression, the higher the NOX.  I'm sure Ford wanted to keep the NOX levels down compared to DI turbo and diesel applications.

DI is an enabler.  It allows for more timing advance, higher compression ratios, and better fuel atomization, all of which will increase an engine's BMEP.  It is true that port fuel injection works a little better at idle and certain operating situations (part throttle deceleration?), but one of the major reasons Ford is using both PFI and DI on some engines is to keep the intake valves clean!  One advantage of PFI is the washing effect of the fuel on the intake valves.  You could say something about effective oil control here..........  

NOX is an issue with higher compression ratios, but can be managed with VVT.  In any event gasoline engine NOX emissions are far below a comparable diesel.

I think DI would improve the 7.3L, but maybe not enough to warrant the cost.  I have a feeling that GM went with DI on their new 6.6L because they didn't spend near the money Ford did on their new engine.  The 6.6L is a Gen. V LS, and doesn't have anything in it that has not been in other LS engines.  

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

Which means there will be copious amounts of hidden power to unlock when the tuners get around to richening it up to 12:1 afr !!!!  Seriously, the V10s wake up in a big way when you pull WOT enrichment down from the ridiculous 14.7:1 in the factory tune.

I still can't wait to see what's possible with long tubes, a bigger cam, a bigger intake, and lightweight valvetrain.  This thing is literally the second coming of the BBF.  It deserves a place right next to the BBC and 385-series BBF.

 

Closer to the second coming of the FE. Which, by the way, was also a truck engine in FT form.

Bore spacing of the 7.3 is 4.60" and the FE/FT was 4.63".  Possibility that the aftermarket can support this engine without all new tooling!

Huge potential for performance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

In agree.  Because it's not going into any performance vehicles, I don't think there will be much aftermarket support, just as there has not been for the 6.2L.  Looks like it shares a bell housing bolt pattern with the 6.7L Powerstroke, if that's the case what transmission could you use that would fit into a Mustang?  

Anything that will bolt to a mod motor. The 6.7 comes with an adaptor ring to convert the round SAE pattern to standard mod motor pattern. All current transmissions used behind the 5.0, 6.2, 6.8, and 6.7 have the mod motor bell pattern.

I'd probably go with the 10R80 for an auto or the Tremec TR-6060 or TKO-600 for a manual. The 6R80 will hold 1000+ hp with upgraded clutches and a safe tune / shift schedule in mustangs, so it's plenty strong enough. As for a manual, a built 7.3 is going to be so torque-happy that it may be nearing the limits of a streetable clutch that will fit inside a modular bell.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

Don't forget about egr too. That combined with sucking residual oil thru the PCV system will really gunk up the intake valves.

VVT pretty much made the EGR valve obsolete on gasoline engines.  But, when they were around, they did make a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

DI is an enabler.  It allows for more timing advance, higher compression ratios, and better fuel atomization, all of which will increase an engine's BMEP.  It is true that port fuel injection works a little better at idle and certain operating situations (part throttle deceleration?), but one of the major reasons Ford is using both PFI and DI on some engines is to keep the intake valves clean!  One advantage of PFI is the washing effect of the fuel on the intake valves.  You could say something about effective oil control here.......... 

 There's no issue that I know of with carbon build up in the inlet ports of Ford Ecoboost engines  or any of the late DI engines. The reason they are using PFDI is to avoid issues with particulates caused by using straight DI and also to use it as a detonation suppression by adding a small squirt next to the spark plug (micro stratified charge).
 

Quote

 

NOX is an issue with higher compression ratios, but can be managed with VVT.  In any event gasoline engine NOX emissions are far below a comparable diesel.

I think DI would improve the 7.3L, but maybe not enough to warrant the cost.  I have a feeling that GM went with DI on their new 6.6L because they didn't spend near the money Ford did on their new engine.  The 6.6L is a Gen. V LS, and doesn't have anything in it that has not been in other LS engines. 

 

I think you're right, is the GM 6.6 a high deck LS?

I get the feeling that the 6.6 will be bigger iron block version of the truck 6.2 LS, so maybe 420 HP becomes 460 HP and 460 lb ft of torque becomes 500 lb ft ....figures that will be remarkably similar to the the Ford 7.3 V8, the difference will be felt when you drive them.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

I don't think GM even needed to go with a high deck to get 6.6L.  It's basically a bored and stroked iron block Gen. V version of the 6.0L without AFM.  I found out it has a forged crank and piston cooling oil jets similar to the Ford 7.3L..  

But going to say 4.125" bore would require the use of a siamesed block ...would that work OK under sustained loading in HD and MD?

Ford was underscoring the use of a big block with wider bore centers to get adequate cooling water in around the cylinders under sustained load. I wonder if GM is so confident in the LS' reliability  that it's prepared to push the design envelope, they now have years of experience with the design.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much room there is the accommodate more stroke in the new 7.3. With a 4.22" bore it's currently oversquare at 445 CI displacement with the 3.96" stroke. The old Windsors and then the modulars were both good for at least another 3/8". Combining a 4.22 bore with a 4.375 stroke gives 489 CI or a full 8.0L.  If the heads flow as much as I expect them too based on recent Ford designs, this new 7.3 is going to have some huge potential with only minor upgrades like intake and cam.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

I wonder how much room there is the accommodate more stroke in the new 7.3. With a 4.22" bore it's currently oversquare at 445 CI displacement with the 3.96" stroke. The old Windsors and then the modulars were both good for at least another 3/8". Combining a 4.22 bore with a 4.375 stroke gives 489 CI or a full 8.0L.  If the heads flow as much as I expect them too based on recent Ford designs, this new 7.3 is going to have some huge potential with only minor upgrades like intake and cam.

Enough room to address any future competitive threats from Ram or GM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, edselford said:

Well, a 4” bore and 4” stroke gets you to 402 cid or 6.6 liters.

based on experience with first generation small block in cast iron,  no need for wider bore centers.  Expect higher deck to around 9.8” to have acceptable r/s ratio.

edselford

 and that's why I asked 7M3 if the 6.6 was a high deck version of the LS instead of just bored and stroked standard deck height LS iron block.

No doubt, we'll learn more about both engines in the coming weeks and it could be that the 6.6 is just as efficient as the 7.3 in truck work.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

But going to say 4.125" bore would require the use of a siamesed block ...would that work OK under sustained loading in HD and MD?

Ford was underscoring the use of a big block with wider bore centers to get adequate cooling water in around the cylinders under sustained load. I wonder if GM is so confident in the LS' reliability  that it's prepared to push the design envelope, they now have years of experience with the design.

The new GM 6.6L has a 103.25mm (4.065") bore and a 98mm (3.85") stroke.  Bore centers are 4.40", same as all LS engines.  The iron 6.6L block does have siamesed bores, but features inter-bore cooling passages.  Siamesed bores do not represent a problem if the cooling system is designed right.  I have heard some say that the Small Block 400 had problems related to its use of siamesed bores, but that isn't true.  The 400's oil control issues were due to cylinder wall distortion caused by head bolt torque.  The head bolt holes were too close to the cylinder walls, and when the bolts were tightened the cylinder walls would bulge out slightly and interfere with ring sealing.  The problem is easily corrected by using a torque plate when boring and honing.  One advantage of siamesed bores is that it makes the block casting stronger and more stable.  The 6.6L must have done well in testing, not only is GM confident enough to use it in their medium duty trucks but Navistar and Isuzu will as well.

As for the 7.3L, the Ford engineer did comment about coolant flow around the cylinders.  I wonder exactly how much flow is between the cylinders, if in fact they are not siamesed as well.  The 7.3L's bore is 107.2mm (4.22"), and with a bore center of 4.6", the distance between the cylinders .38" (9.6mm).  The GM 6.6L has .335" (8.5mm), a slight difference.  What puzzles me a bit is why didn't Ford go to a 4.75" or even 4.90" (Lima) bore spacing since this engine is a 'clean sheet'.  GM went with 4.40 because the 6.6L is a variant of an existing engine family.   

 

  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

The new GM 6.6L has a 103.25mm (4.065") bore and a 98mm (3.85") stroke.  Bore centers are 4.40", same as all LS engines.  The iron 6.6L block does have siamesed bores, but features inter-bore cooling passages.  Siamesed bores do not represent a problem if the cooling system is designed right.  I have heard some say that the Small Block 400 had problems related to its use of siamesed bores, but that isn't true.  The 400's oil control issues were due to cylinder wall distortion caused by head bolt torque.  The head bolt holes were too close to the cylinder walls, and when the bolts were tightened the cylinder walls would bulge out slightly and interfere with ring sealing.  The problem is easily corrected by using a torque plate when boring and honing.  One advantage of siamesed bores is that it makes the block casting stronger and more stable.  The 6.6L must have done well in testing, not only is GM confident enough to use it in their medium duty trucks but Navistar and Isuzu will as well.

Thanks for the detail on the new 6.6 V8, so I giuess that it's still standard deck height, 9.24"?

Quote

As for the 7.3L, the Ford engineer did comment about coolant flow around the cylinders.  I wonder exactly how much flow is between the cylinders, if in fact they are not siamesed as well.  The 7.3L's bore is 107.2mm (4.22"), and with a bore center of 4.6", the distance between the cylinders .38" (9.6mm).  The GM 6.6L has .335" (8.5mm), a slight difference.  What puzzles me a bit is why didn't Ford go to a 4.75" or even 4.90" (Lima) bore spacing since this engine is a 'clean sheet'.  GM went with 4.40 because the 6.6L is a variant of an existing engine family.   

The 1960s FE 427 engine series had a bore of 4.23" and a bore spacing of 4.63" . Someone previously remarked that Hot Rodders used to use the 3.98" crank out of the 428 in a 427 to make a 445, pretty close to the new 7.3. Relatively speaking, the new 7.3's bore spacing is wider than that of the 6.2 Boss (4.53").

In any regard, the 7.3 V8 definitely has a wider bore spacing than the GM 6.6 V8 and rvrn though the pistons are bigger,  that is still in slightly better proportion that the GM V8. Most cylinder walls are around 3mm or 1/8" so there's better than 3mm water gap on the 7.3 V8. I think it's all relative and probably moot if all the MD truck durability studies and trials have been done.

 

 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

 

Just saw this in the 6.6 V8 video, 401 hp @ 5200 and 464 lb ft @ 4,000 and 10.8:1 compression

 hyper-eutectic pistons, powder metal rods, forged crank.

 

 

So GM finally has an answer to Ford's V10 torque of 457 ft-lbs it's been rated at since 2005. Only the V10 does it 750 RPM earlier.

I don't think this 6.6 is going to be much competition for the new 7.3. On paper the 6.6 LS looks like a V10 that pulls 40 hp harder at the expense of low-end grunt. Yawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Thanks for the detail on the new 6.6 V8, so I giuess that it's still standard deck height, 9.24"?

The 1960s FE 427 engine series had a bore of 4.23" and a bore spacing of 4.63" . Someone previously remarked that Hot Rodders used to use the 3.98" crank out of the 428 in a 427 to make a 445, pretty close to the new 7.3. Relatively speaking, the new 7.3's bore spacing is wider than that of the 6.2 Boss (4.53").

In any regard, the 7.3 V8 definitely has a wider bore spacing than the GM 6.6 V8 and rvrn though the pistons are bigger,  that is still in slightly better proportion that the GM V8. Most cylinder walls are around 3mm or 1/8" so there's better than 3mm water gap on the 7.3 V8. I think it's all relative and probably moot if all the MD truck durability studies and trials have been done.

 

 

Also remember the FE 427 was replaced by the less-oversquare FE 428 in part because of difficulties with core shift in the 427 block.  Of course that was with mid-60's casting technology.  FWIW, it looks like the GM 6.6L has relatively thick cylinder walls judging from the cut-away views in the plant video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

Also remember the FE 427 was replaced by the less-oversquare FE 428 in part because of difficulties with core shift in the 427 block.  Of course that was with mid-60's casting technology.  FWIW, it looks like the GM 6.6L has relatively thick cylinder walls judging from the cut-away views in the plant video.

Yes, I've actually sonic tested a lot of blocks over the past 30 years, most are very solid on the sides but in between the cylinders is where they thin out, siamezing the bores and adding cross holes to improve circulation is brilliant and overcomes the need for those "steam holes" we used to see on the early Chev 400s with 4.125" bore.  The 7.3 will probably maintain separate cylinders and full water circulation thanks to the wider bore centers - I know the Ford engineer didn't actually confirm that but I get the feeling that's what he meant in the video...

5 hours ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

So GM finally has an answer to Ford's V10 torque of 457 ft-lbs it's been rated at since 2005. Only the V10 does it 750 RPM earlier.

I don't think this 6.6 is going to be much competition for the new 7.3. On paper the 6.6 LS looks like a V10 that pulls 40 hp harder at the expense of low-end grunt. Yawn.

It makes me wonder too, GM basically developed an iron block version of the Gen V 6.2 but with a slightly longer stroke and I get what they are doing.

It's pretty much what we were expected GM to do, beat the 6.8 V10's figures on paper and use the 10-speed auto to make up for any low torque deficit. Simple efficient robust extension of the existing LS architectural, it gets the job done for GM in a clever way across the board with HD and MD trucks.

Speaking of clever, how smart is Ford to keep the 6.2 V8 as a base engine with optional 10-speed and then take F Series to another level with the 7.3 V8, I think it's a spectacularly brilliant move and a secret that was well kept up until now, perhaps holding back the power details until GM showed theirs and maybe just add the figures from the tune that steals  GM's thunder?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at that video, I'll wager the 7.3L does have siamesed bores.  Noticed the machined slots between the bores?  Might not be enough material between the cylinders to cast the water passage, so they precisely machine a slot.  Doesn't have to be too deep.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...